Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: returned to?  (Read 1589 times)

Offline Jomot

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,673
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #9 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 02:42 BST (UK) »
Its the parish church as far as I'm aware.   I'm not sure if that link I posted was specifically Catholic, but Visitation of the Sick also applies to C of E

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01k2q/

I'm only guessing that's what it's referring to though! 
MORGAN: Glamorgan, Durham, Ohio. DAVIS/DAVIES/DAVID: Glamorgan, Ohio.  GIBSON: Leicestershire, Durham, North Yorkshire.  RAIN/RAINE: Cumberland.  TAYLOR: North Yorks. BOURDAS: North Yorks. JEFFREYS: Worcestershire & Northumberland. FORBES: Berwickshire, CHEESMOND: Durham/Northumberland. WINTER: Durham/Northumberland. SNOWBALL: Durham.

Offline Suzy W

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,412
  • The only way forward is backwards
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #10 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 02:45 BST (UK) »
St Peter's Church in Leire.  I think they are Anglican.
TEW family of Leire/Leicester and New Zealand
MERRICKS of Stafford/Birmingham
PENTECOST of Surrey and New Zealand
POTENTIER of France, England and Canada
WATKINS of London and New Zealand
WHITAKER of Guiseley Yorkshire and New Zealand
LYALL, of Dundee, Caithness and New Zealand

And far too many to add

Offline Suzy W

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,412
  • The only way forward is backwards
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #11 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 02:48 BST (UK) »
By the way George lived until 1911.  So he may of been ill as a baby, not sure.  Another note I should of added, but only thought of until now,  he was born in Warwickshire, so could it mean he was returned to his fathers village?

Suzy W
TEW family of Leire/Leicester and New Zealand
MERRICKS of Stafford/Birmingham
PENTECOST of Surrey and New Zealand
POTENTIER of France, England and Canada
WATKINS of London and New Zealand
WHITAKER of Guiseley Yorkshire and New Zealand
LYALL, of Dundee, Caithness and New Zealand

And far too many to add

Offline Rosinish

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,239
  • PASSED & PAST
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #12 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 02:48 BST (UK) »
Suzy,

It may be worth sending St Peter's Church an email with the attachment to enquire as to the meaning of the annotation?

Nothing to lose  :)

Annie

South Uist, Inverness-shire, Scotland:- Bowie, Campbell, Cumming, Currie

Ireland:- Cullen, Flannigan (Derry), Donahoe/Donaghue (variants) (Cork), McCrate (Tipperary), Mellon, Tol(l)and (Donegal & Tyrone)

Newcastle-on-Tyne/Durham (Northumberland):- Harrison, Jude, Kemp, Lunn, Mellon, Robson, Stirling

Kettering, Northampton:- MacKinnon

Canada:- Callaghan, Cumming, MacPhee

"OLD GENEALOGISTS NEVER DIE - THEY JUST LOSE THEIR CENSUS"

Offline venelow

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #13 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 06:18 BST (UK) »
Hi Suzy

If you look at other pages in the register e.g 35, 37, 39 and 40 there are similar notations.

I think this refers to the return of a copy of the register to the diocese officials. Aka the Bishop's Transcripts.
Further back, in the 1820s there are a couple of notes  "Returned to here" with an X to mark the entry in the margins.

Looks like the visitations were the from the diocese office, if not the Bishop himself, at least some representative to whom the Vicar gave a copy of the Register. He made a note in the Register to show when the return was made and so he would know where to start the next one.

Venelow
Canada

Online BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,301
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #14 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 07:12 BST (UK) »
Venelow has the answer  ;D ;D  Copies of the registers were required to be sent to the Archdiocese.

Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer.
He/she who never made a mistake, never made anything.
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline Suzy W

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,412
  • The only way forward is backwards
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #15 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 08:23 BST (UK) »
Thank you, so nothing to do with George or his family. ;D

Cheers
Suzy W
TEW family of Leire/Leicester and New Zealand
MERRICKS of Stafford/Birmingham
PENTECOST of Surrey and New Zealand
POTENTIER of France, England and Canada
WATKINS of London and New Zealand
WHITAKER of Guiseley Yorkshire and New Zealand
LYALL, of Dundee, Caithness and New Zealand

And far too many to add

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: returned to?
« Reply #16 on: Tuesday 09 May 17 08:44 BST (UK) »
This note apparently records the Archdeacon's visitation on the 17th May .
A visitation was the periodic visit by the bishop or archdeacon of the diocese to inspect the temporal and spiritual affairs of the parish. The entry probably means that the register was 'Exhibited' or shown to the archdeacon for his inspection. Archdeacon's visitations were carried out annually and covered the church fabric, furnishings, services, and an assessment of the conduct of the parochial officers and the moral and religious attitudes of the clergy and parishioners.
The next entry was for May 29th. so after the visitation.
Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Pages: 1 [2]